Is There A Case For Impeachment - Harpers Magazine Hosts Panel Discussion

The Case for Impeachment: Why We Can No Longer Afford George W. Bush - An excerpt from an essay in the March 2006 Harper's Magazine

"A country is not only what it does—it is also what it puts up with, what it tolerates. — Kurt Tucholsky"

Lately, we are tolerating a lot of unethical, unlawful and unconstitutional garbage at the direction of George W. Bush and the leadership of the GOP.

HARPER'S MAGAZINE PRESENTS: IS THERE A CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT?
Thursday, March 2, 8:00PM Town Hall
123 West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10063
A PUBLIC FORUM FEATURING:

• Lewis H. Lapham, editor of Harper's Magazine


• Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.), ranking member, U.S. House Judiciary Committee


• Michael Ratner, president, Center for Constitutional Rights


• Elizabeth Holtzman, member of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee during Watergate


• John Dean, White House Counsel to President Nixon and author of Worse Than Watergate


• Moderated by Sam Seder, host of "The Majority Report" on Air America Radio

If I were in the NYC area, I would make an effort to attend. In lieu of my attending, I urge anyone living near NYC to attend if they can!

On December 18 of last year, Congressman John Conyers Jr. (D., Mich.) introduced into the House of Representatives a resolution inviting it to form “a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.”

Conyers' call for the select committee has fallen on deaf ears. The Republican dominated congress has kowtowed to the president and his representatives out of a loyalty to their ultra-conservative ideology without regard for their oaths to support and defend the Constitution. The members of the House are supposed to call for the impeachment process when the president has committed acts that are even considered "misdemeanors":

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. - Article II, Section 4, US Constitution

Certainly there is ample evidence for misdemeanors. There is ample evidence that the decision to not supply proper armor that could have prevented over 80% of the deaths and injuries to our troops in combat is a criminal act for which Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are directly responsible. Surely lying to the country about the intelligence that convinced the congress to pass the AUMF resolution is criminal... at least it ought to be. The Dubai Ports World smacks of bribery, if not a criminal disregard for national security. (Wouldn't that qualify as treasonous?) Certainly violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments of our Constitution is a crime in that it violates the oath of office. We know that the administration violated FISA in its wiretapping efforts, as well as violating the law in terms of conducting a mandated review of the DPW deal.

What is it going to take for the members of the House to start the process and respond to Conyers' clarion call?

Although buttressed two days previously by the news of the National Security Agency's illegal surveillance of the American citizenry, the request attracted little or no attention in the press—nothing on television or in the major papers, some scattered applause from the left-wing blogs, heavy sarcasm on the websites flying the flags of the militant right. The nearly complete silence raised the question as to what it was the congressman had in mind, and to whom did he think he was speaking?

A true display of the arrogance of the entire GOP and the cowardice of the Democrats. The Republicans think themselves above the law by divine right given to them by the ultra-conservative Christian right. The Democrats think themselves unable to stand up to the Republican onslaught of political maneuvers because the Democrats have lost the moral compass that used to be theirs to claim under leadership by FDR, JFK and LBJ (not that these folks were not without their faults). But the Preamble of the Constitution gives us six basic purposes of government in a free society... and the Democrats have ignored the authority of the Preamble while the Republicans have abused their authority under the the entire document.

In time of war few propositions would seem as futile as the attempt to impeach a president whose political party controls the Congress; as the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee stationed on Capitol Hill for the last forty years, Representative Conyers presumably knew that to expect the Republican caucus in the House to take note of his invitation, much less arm it with the power of subpoena, was to expect a miracle of democratic transformation and rebirth not unlike the one looked for by President Bush under the prayer rugs in Baghdad

.
But we are not in a state of war. Congress passed a resolution authorizing the use of military force against terrorists and those that support terrorism. The AUMF makes the invasion of Iraq entirely illegal because the president and his gang LIED to us to convince the country that Saddam Hussein was involved in WMD and supporting Al-Qaeda... none of which has proven to be true. However, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, UAE, Syria and a few other places certainly have Al-Qaeda connections. Iran presents a global nuclear threat. But none of those countries are subject to US actions under the AUMF resoltuion (not that I want to see us exercise the AUMF in that fashion).

But we have NOT declared a war against a sovereign nation and the term "war on terror" is a misnomer by rhetoric, cause and action. It is a term that has been used to justify the breach of our inherent rights. It is a phrase used to justify an unjust invasion of a country that posed no great threat to our sovereignty or safety. It is rhetoric used to empower those in the administration to brow-beat us into a state of fear. And it is a rhetoric used to support an obviously flawed and failed national security plan... if we can call it a plan.

Unless the congressman [Conyers] intended some sort of symbolic gesture, self-serving and harmless, what did he hope to prove or to gain? He answered the question in early January, on the phone from Detroit during the congressional winter recess.

“To take away the excuse,” he said, “that we didn't know.” So that two or four or ten years from now, if somebody should ask, “Where were you, Conyers, and where was the United States Congress?” when the Bush Administration declared the Constitution inoperative and revoked the license of parliamentary government, none of the company now present can plead ignorance or temporary insanity, can say that “somehow it escaped our notice” that the President was setting himself up as a supreme leader exempt from the rule of law.

A reason with which it was hard to argue but one that didn't account for the congressman's impatience. Why not wait for a showing of supportive public opinion, delay the motion to impeach until after next November's elections?

The only thing Conyers had to gain was the sense of integrity from speaking out according to one's sense of duty and conviction.

Assuming that further investigation of the President's addiction to the uses of domestic espionage finds him nullifying the Fourth Amendment rights of a large number of his fellow Americans, the Democrats possibly could come up with enough votes, their own and a quorum of disenchanted Republicans, to send the man home to Texas. Conyers said:

“I don't think enough people know how much damage this administration can do to their civil liberties in a very short time. What would you have me do? Grumble and complain? Make cynical jokes? Throw up my hands and say that under the circumstances nothing can be done? At least I can muster the facts, establish a record, tell the story that ought to be front-page news.”

I agree... not enough people know the damage this administration HAS DONE to our civil liberties and our standing in the international community. We are supposed to be the "good guys" that live by principles carved in our hearts and embodied in out Constitution.

Our current leadership in the White House, Senate, House of Representatives, and the Supreme Court are despicable examples of American law, decency and spirit.